The Government: Not a Direct Provider of Goods to the Citizenry but a Regulator for the Public Good

Some people accuse Dr. Russell Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission [ERLC] of the Southern Baptist Convention, of being a Leftist. Those people are wrong. Leftists do not post videos on YouTube against Socialism:



I greatly appreciated this video from Dr. Moore. It is a clear word needed for today. I shared it on social media, and I'd encourage anyone reading this to do so as well.

I do want to more closely examine one statement from the video. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with this statement either. However, I do think it needs some clear thinking.

Dr. Moore mentions:

Everybody [except for ultra-libertarian, Ayn Rand-types] would agree that the government should do something to provide for people who cannot provide for themselves; the disagreements come in with how big that should be, how intrusive that should be, or how generous that should be, depending on the way that you view it.

I agree that "the government should do something to provide for people who cannot provide for themselves." However, I do NOT think that the question (rightly understood) is "how big that should be". Rather, the issue to be considered should be: HOW should the government "provide for people who cannot provide for themselves," or rather what should the government provide in order to make sure that such people have a just opportunity to receive provision?

In thinking about government's involvement in providing for people who cannot provide for themselves, it is important to think through the proper role for government. What is the purpose of government, and what should government be doing? Summarizing the biblical data on this issue, David A. Noebel writes:

Government was established by God to manifest and preserve His justice on earth. This is government's central purpose; as such, the state should concentrate on enforcing justice and avoid meddling in other institutions' business. Generally speaking, the church was ordained to manifest God's grace on the earth, and the family to manifest God's community and creativity (including procreativity). The government, then, as the institution of justice, should prohibit, prevent, prosecute, and punish injustice. The church, as the institution of grace, should preach the gospel and be the chief vehicle of charitable aid to the needy. And families should have chief responsibility for bearing, raising, and educating children, and for creating, possessing, and disposing of property.

Each of these institutions is limited by its own definition and by the other two. Because government is an institution of justice, not of grace or community or creativity, it should not interfere with freedom of religion, attempt to dispense grace through tax-funded handouts, control family size, interfere in raising children (including education), or control the economy and the disposition of property.

If Noebel's analysis is correct, then government is "the institution of justice" and "should prohibit, prevent, prosecute, and punish injustice." In general, I believe Noebel is correct in that the government should not interfere in seeking to "control the economy and the disposition of property." However, I do think that in order to prevent unjust oppression, making sure that people who cannot provide for themselves have a just opportunity to receive provision, the government should be understood as having a REGULATORY role.

Consider the following instructions from the Mosaic Law:

When you reap the harvest in your field, and you forget a sheaf in the field, do not go back to get it. It is to be left for the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you knock down the fruit from your olive tree, do not go over the branches again. What remains will be for the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow. When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not glean what is left. What remains will be for the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow. (Deuteronomy 24:19-21)

Notice what these laws do NOT do. These laws do NOT involve the government taking anything from the people. They do NOT involve the government itself giving goods to the citizenry. In short, these laws do NOT make the government directly responsible for redistributing wealth.

But also notice what these laws DO. These laws DO put a check on greed. As these are LAWS, the people would have been REQUIRED to obey them. If people were found to be breaking the laws, they would have been brought before the judges, who are mentioned in other passages. (I assume, based on other passages, that they would be required to pay restitution for having broken the law.)  In short, these laws do NOT lead to an entirely "hands off" approach to how the government should treat the wealth of individuals/families/businesses; instead, these laws (along with others) have the effect of making the government provisionally responsible for making sure that individuals/families/businesses exercise their distinct responsibilities, leading to a situation in which people who cannot provide for themselves would have a just opportunity to receive provision.

The civil laws in Deuteronomy were given to Israel as part of the Old Covenant. With the conclusion of the Old Covenant, these laws are no longer directly applicable to any nation today. However, the laws are just and inspired. Principles in these laws are consistent with what should be discerned through natural revelation (that is, they are applicable even outside of the believing community), and believers should certainly seek to glean principles from these laws to inform our view of what government IS and what it should DO whenever possible.